|
Hi Jonathan,
You are displaying the Html page by reading it from a resource file as against the file being rendered by a web server. There is no location from where your html can locate the css file.
One solution is to save both the html file and the css file to a temporary folder and display the html from there (I believe the WebBrowser control has a Navigate method or so).
Alternatively, you can use inline stylesheet using the <style> tag.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Shameel for your quick reply.
If what you're saying is correct (and it does make sense to me) and there's no other solution I think I will just have to include the CSS code within the
<style> tags.
Unfortunately, this just makes the management of the style harder as I'd have to tweak every HTML file as and when required. 
|
|
|
|
|
Or you can explore the other option I suggested, i.e., save both the html and css files in the same temporary folder and use WebBrowser.Navigate(<<html path>>).
|
|
|
|
|
If this is a winforms app, and you're using the web browser control, you MUST supply the fully qualified path to any style or javascript file you want to load. I do it this way:
string html = string.Format("<link rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' href=\"{0}\" />", System.IO.Path.Combine(Application.StartupPath, "myFile.css"));
If you made the css and html files embedded resources, they will be extracted when the program runs to the executable folder. This way, you can use the Application.StartupPath as the path to the files.
You may find this article helpful in this regard:
CodeProject Article Scraper, Revisited[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to have plugin functionality in my application. So first thing came in mind was to just load the DLLs and call the common abstract class methods. After completing all that, I noticed that there could be many security issues. The next thing I used was different AppDomain. But that solve half of problem. Assume this, if a plugin wants to connect a server over internet, the firewall will show the name of my application and user may allow without knowing its the plugin who is trying to connect. After that I started using NamedPipeStream, separated them in processes, connected plugins and application through PipeStream, it does exactly what I needed but each plugins means a different process.
Even everything is working fine but its not satisfying, something still feels not so good. My question is, is that the only way ?
PS : I just want simple plugin support, not some complicated library like System.AddIn.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Simple for you may be altogether different for someone else. I googled "C# plugin framework" and got 17 million hits back, and on the first page, I found this:
http://madskristensen.net/post/Generic-plug-in-application-in-C.aspx[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I googled "C# plugin framework" and got 17 million hits back
and you just read my message title not the content 
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
He was responding to your statement "I just want simple plugin support..."
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Nice reason to vote 1, did you also forgot to remember I wrote that in first place
"My question is, is that the only way ?"
do I have to make it in big font, so you can see ?
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Xmen W.K. wrote: do I have to make it in big font, so you can see ?
Nice attitude. Good luck with getting anyone to help you now.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Have you looked at MEF[^]
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why this was downvoted. MEF was going to be my recommendation as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm not sure why this was downvoted.
Simple retaliation. Read the other responses, the OP is being an a$$.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm not sure why this was downvoted.
That guy need to learn bit respect, voted me down for nothing.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: MEF was going to be my recommendation as well.
yes I know but MEF is not really what I was needed. The following is from my post
Assume this, if a plugin wants to connect a server over internet, the firewall will show the name of my application and user may allow without knowing its the plugin who is trying to connect.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Xmen W.K. wrote: That guy need to learn bit respect, voted me down for nothing.
It's not Mark that needs to learn a bit of respect, and it's wasn't he that downvoted you...
Xmen W.K. wrote: Assume this, if a plugin wants to connect a server over internet, the
firewall will show the name of my application and user may allow without knowing
its the plugin who is trying to connect.
DLL's don't get a process name. DLL's are loaded into the host .EXE process just as if it was part of the .EXE itself. There is no distinction between the .DLL code and the .EXE code, so any code in your .DLL that goes through the firewall is going to appear to the firewall as coming from the .EXE.
The only way I see to getting around this would be to host your .DLL's in a seperate .EXE process and use interprocess communication methods to talk between the two. But, considering the requirement, that's adding a LOT of weight and overhead to your application for very little to no benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: The only way I see to getting around this would be to host your .DLL's in a seperate .EXE process and use interprocess communication methods to talk between the two. But, considering the requirement, that's adding a LOT of weight and overhead to your application for very little to no benefit.
Thats what I asked, if you have read my question. But there is benefit, the spyware kind of plugins will always be separated and end user will be responsible for anything goes wrong, not the host application.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
The end-user is going to be accountable for it no matter which executable runs the thing! If the app name comes back a normal production app, then they can just look at the plugins and see that something here isn't quite like the others.
I think you're inflating the usefulness of this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I think you're inflating the usefulness of this idea.
I'm just trying to make application more separated as much as possible. I used PipeStream to communicate between processes as I wrote above...the question was simple, is that the only way ? but some people were in too hurry to read that.
Anyway thanks for the reply
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't misread it. I just thought it was a daft idea. Marshalling backwards and forwards of data could end up beinga a fairly expensive business.
|
|
|
|
|
Sending/Receiving data through pipe is a daft idea ?
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
No - the effort you'll expend creating an overengineered plug-in framework is the daft idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Creating that thread and expecting right answer(s) was the daft idea. You guys just read the question, replies completely different thing, ignoring what actually been asked, down votes for nothing.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
No. I understood what you were after from the start (and I haven't voted on this). The reason that I would suggest MEF is because I am friends with the guys who wrote it, and know that they didn't think this was an issue that they had to contend with, so you could learn a lot from the architecture they put in place. If they didn't think that, why should you have to worry about it?
Bottom line - yes, separate processes is the only way you could achieve this, but each process takes up valuable memory and resources and can lead to your application being treated as a memory hog. More importantly, you are expecting the users to have to trust individual plugins through your firewall - I've worked with an application that does this and it was a complete PITA from a user perspective (the application was Lightwave and had something called the Hub that had to be granted access through the firewall). It was an awful experience, and not one I'd want to inflict on users. Even Chrome and Firefox don't feel this is a necessary step. So yes, it is a daft idea.
Of course, you can arrogantly go on your way and overengineer this thing, and then wonder why you end up having no users. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: The reason that I would suggest MEF is because I am friends with the guys who wrote it, and know that they didn't think this was an issue that they had to contend with, so you could learn a lot from the architecture they put in place.
I'm not against MEF or saying its not good but I tried, its too much code just for plugin.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: If they didn't think that, why should you have to worry about it?
So you are saying now, I must walk the same path they did.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Bottom line - yes, separate processes is the only way you could achieve this
See its not that hard, could be said earlier.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: ut each process takes up valuable memory and resources and can lead to your application being treated as a memory hog.
Not all plugins will start at once, user must click to start them. If (s)he starts 100 plugins, then Im not responsible for that. Its same as you are suggesting I shouldn't worry about firewall issue.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Even Chrome and Firefox don't feel this is a necessary step. So yes, it is a daft idea.
These kind of things doesnt effect those big popular companies.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Of course, you can arrogantly go on your way and overengineer this thing
Arrogantly ? If I had to go that way, then why would I asked here in first place. And I dont see it as overengineer or whatever you call it. Its just the way things works.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Xmen W.K. wrote: That guy need to learn bit respect, voted me down for nothing.
Revenge univoting is not teaching somebody respect. It's just childish. It is the forum equivalent of "Did-to, Did-not" that children engage in.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
